Donald Trump has vowed to implement a wave of increasing tariffs on eight European countries until the US is allowed to buy Greenland. The US president has stated he is “very serious” about annexing the vast Danish territory and has not ruled out taking it by force.
The National Security Argument
Speaking to Sky News’ US partner, NBC News, Trump emphasised the island’s geopolitical importance. “We need Greenland for national security, and that includes Europe. We need it for national security, right now,” he told NBC. He added that the territory is “very important for the national security of the United States, Europe, and other parts of the free world.”
Expert Scepticism: “A Figment of Imagination”
However, Peter Viggo Jakobsen, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, has rubbished these claims. “There is no acute problem to solve – the chief and Russian ships that he keeps talking about are a figment of his imagination,” Jakobsen told Sky News. “There is no security threat to Greenland.”
He explains that the US already has de facto military control via existing agreements that give the US “permission to expand their military presence in Greenland and establish new bases if they perceive it as necessary.” Because Trump has not used these existing channels, Jakobsen suggests the real goal is control over Greenland’s natural resources, including rare-earth minerals, uranium, and oil.
Danish and European Defiance
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has hinted at catastrophic consequences if force is used. “If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” she told TV2. “That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War.”
A joint statement from European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, reinforced this: “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”
The Potential End of NATO
Military analyst Michael Clarke says that forcibly taking Greenland “would effectively end the credibility of NATO as a collective alliance.” Yet, editor Deborah Haynes suggests Trump may not be deterred by this. “He is also probably gambling that Washington could get away with an Arctic land grab as the rest of NATO needs the US more than he needs them,” she says. She notes that because NATO is so reliant on American weapons and technology, other member states may be unable to stop the move, leaving them as the “biggest losers” in a potential breakdown of the alliance.
